No legal case for being hit by a ball on the course

[dufferman]

Dufferman, If you played a municipal you would probably find that there is some sort of insurance cover with the green fee/season ticket. Most do, and it would be worth checking for the sake of the injured golfer.

Well... the course we played is part of a chain. Another local course part of this chain ask you to fill in an insurance form before your round, which covers you for the round you play. This course we played Saturday I'm told used to do this, but stopped. Unless they no longer need you full details, only the name of the person who booked the tee time & their phone number, then it's likely. But I don't think that could work?

Would it be viable for the course to have to have insurance? After all, the course in the £400,000 case had to pay partly too?

 

[Jay Gee]

Whilst there are many interesting opinions aired and whether you agree or disagree, the fact remains that if you injure someone or damage property on a golf course then you could find yourself defending a court case. Additionally, as there are many golfers with insurance, if an injured party were just to claim against their own insurance, the insurance company themselves might seek to recover their loss from whoever was responsible. In the £400K case, this was both the player and the club.

Just because insurance isn't compulsory on a golf course, it doesn't mean it's not prudent, but it's up to the individual.

 

[Five&One]

I believe the majority understand and agree there must be duty of care demonstrated when on a golf course.

Where I believe many disagree is the point at which that duty of care has lapsed... and, for me, the precedent has been set by Lord Brailsford (keeping the Scottish / English law point separate for now) that duty of care is deemed to have lapsed when hitting a golf ball when someone is in range of where your ball could potentially reach. Setting that precedent is what disappoints me as I believe that precedent is wrong.

By the same token, if you see 3 guys walking along a path to the side of the fairway you are playing to and you know that very shortly they are going to come off the path and go on to the nearby tee, then surely you would at least think about the possibilites of hitting one of them and maybe wait few seconds longer. Perhaps you wouldnt because you always drive it straight. I would because I dont always drive it straight. In the 400k case it was a bit presumptious and arrogant of the defender to hit his drive.

In my opinion, etiquette should have dictated that he waited until they were off the path at least. If they had been walking down the fairway in front of him, just 20 odd yards to the right of where the guy was hit, there is no way he would have played. 20 yards away and off the fairway on a path and suddenly its okay to play without even a thought that you might hit them ? I'm not convinced that breach of etiquette should mean you get hammered for 80k worth of damages but he was undoubtedly in breach of etiquette in my opinion. I know the holes concerned and I'd have waitied without a doubt. Its a really tight course and higher handicappers are often hitting adjacent fairways and have trouble keeping it on the hole they are playing.

Also in the £400k case appeal the club were found 80% liable for the damages and the player 20%. That was a reversal from 70% liability on the player and 30% on the club, which I think was ludicrous when the whole thing stemmed from a design fault that the club knew about, an accident waiting to happen that could have been prevented but wasnt. Unfortunately when it happened, it happened BIG TIME.

 

[mab]

By the same token, if you see 3 guys walking along a path to the side of the fairway you are playing to and you know that very shortly they are going to come off the path and go on to the nearby tee, then surely you would at least think about the possibilites of hitting one of them and maybe wait few seconds longer. Perhaps you wouldnt because you always drive it straight. I would because I dont always drive it straight. In the 400k case it was a bit presumptious and arrogant of the defender to hit his drive.

In my opinion, etiquette should have dictated that he waited until they were off the path at least. If they had been walking down the fairway in front of him, just 20 odd yards to the right of where the guy was hit, there is no way he would have played. 20 yards away and off the fairway on a path and suddenly its okay to play without even a thought that you might hit them ? I'm not convinced that breach of etiquette should mean you get hammered for 80k worth of damages but he was undoubtedly in breach of etiquette in my opinion. I know the holes concerned and I'd have waitied without a doubt. Its a really tight course and higher handicappers are often hitting adjacent fairways and have trouble keeping it on the hole they are playing.

Also in the £400k case appeal the club were found 80% liable for the damages and the player 20%. That was a reversal from 70% liability on the player and 30% on the club, which I think was ludicrous when the whole thing stemmed from a design fault that the club knew about, an accident waiting to happen that could have been prevented but wasnt. Unfortunately when it happened, it happened BIG TIME.

Really good to get your insight knowing the course, and... you're absolutely right! I've just re-read the article and I missed a key piece of the puzzle when previously skim reading. The path.

I would have done exactly as you suggest; I would have waited until the group had left the path and were on the tee. Not waiting in this instance is a clear lapse in duty of care given the distances (20 yards from the fairway) we're talking. Trust me, I don't drive it straight.

Happy to admit I'm wrong in this instance. Lord Brailsford... I apologise if you're reading this.

I do, however, maintain the principles of my previous points and still have concerns that the £400k case has set what I consider to be an inappropriate general precedent.

 

[Five&One]

Really good to get your insight knowing the course, and... you're absolutely right! I've just re-read the article and I missed a key piece of the puzzle when previously skim reading. The path.

I would have done exactly as you suggest; I would have waited until the group had left the path and were on the tee. Not waiting in this instance is a clear lapse in duty of care given the distances (20 yards from the fairway) we're talking. Trust me, I don't drive it straight.

Happy to admit I'm wrong in this instance. Lord Brailsford... I apologise if you're reading this.

I do, however, maintain the principles of my previous points and still have concerns that the £400k case has set what I consider to be an inappropriate general precedent.

Your main principle is correct though. Being hit by pure accident by a ball shouldnt be attracting a law suit in its own right. Thats a hazard of being on a golf course that everyone accepts and that general principal has been eroded by the £400k verdict so the mindset now is that any and all injuries on a golf course are someone's fault and persuable for compensation. Thats a nonsense you have pointed out vehemently and most people would agree that its nonsense.

However thats the culture we are living with and it would be prudent to at least consider how and if you are covered if it happens to you.(hitting someone who wants to sue, not being hit yourself) Its also prudent for golf clubs to carry out a full risk assesment and thats actually a good thing that has been needing to be done for years, including at the £400k club where the issue and the potential for disaster was quite apparent to people who played it regularly and was ignored to their painful cost (although they havent fully exhausted the appeal procedure yet I am led to believe)

 

[williamalex1]

At the grand national this weekend, will there be claims made by horse owners or jockeys because they FELL and got injured ,while trying to take a fence . Or should the racecourse sue the horse for damaging their fence .What next a boxer gets sued for hitting his opponent too hard.

 

[Five&One]

At the grand national this weekend, will there be claims made by horse owners or jockeys because they FELL and got injured ,while trying to take a fence . Or should the racecourse sue the horse for damaging their fence .What next a boxer gets sued for hitting his opponent too hard.

You will probably find that most losses or damages you could expect to encounter in other sports, especially at elite level, are covered by insurance. Golf, being one of the biggest amateur participation sports there is, is probably amongst the lowest in terms of its participants and principles being covered for loss or protected by insurance.

If your horse dies jumping a fence at Aintree and you've had the foresight to have it insured, then you claim. If you haven't then you suck it up and probably regret it. I can't see the problem with that to be honest and don't really see the issue if someone is prepared to insure themselves or if someone claims against someone who is insured for an outcome which has transpired. You should assess the risks and determine for yourself if you want to cover yourself for those risks. That's the same for any walk of life, not just golf. The greater the risk, the higher the cost is of covering it and if its too risky, you won't be able to cover it.

There is plenty of protection against frivolous and unjustified claims because there is a burden of proof required to be shown so your not going see a rush of one eyed golfers stumbling up the court steps unless there is fault, blame and liability in the conduct that caused the injury. You can't just claim because you have been injured. You have to prove it was someone's fault and not just an accident, you have to prove there was culpable conduct. You cant just moan, point the finger and hold your hand out. It doesn't work that way.

if I am putting and you fire your approach shot at the green I am on from 150 yards away and take my eye out, then I am suing your backside off because that is utterly reckless. If I am walking on an opposite fairway and your wayward shot hits me in the eye then I don't have anywhere to go with that (apart from my own personal injury cover if I have it)neither should anyone and in law, no one would be able to successfully claim on that basis.

 

[williamalex1]

You will probably find that most losses or damages you could expect to encounter in other sports, especially at elite level, are covered by insurance. Golf, being one of the biggest amateur participation sports there is, is probably amongst the lowest in terms of its participants and principles being covered for loss or protected by insurance.

If your horse dies jumping a fence at Aintree and you've had the foresight to have it insured, then you claim. If you haven't then you suck it up and probably regret it. I can't see the problem with that to be honest and don't really see the issue if someone is prepared to insure themselves or if someone claims against someone who is insured for an outcome which has transpired. You should assess the risks and determine for yourself if you want to cover yourself for those risks. That's the same for any walk of life, not just golf. The greater the risk, the higher the cost is of covering it and if its too risky, you won't be able to cover it.

There is plenty of protection against frivolous and unjustified claims because there is a burden of proof required to be shown so your not going see a rush of one eyed golfers stumbling up the court steps unless there is fault, blame and liability in the conduct that caused the injury. You can't just claim because you have been injured. You have to prove it was someone's fault and not just an accident, you have to prove there was culpable conduct. You cant just moan, point the finger and hold your hand out. It doesn't work that way.

if I am putting and you fire your approach shot at the green I am on from 150 yards away and take my eye out, then I am suing your backside off because that is utterly reckless. If I am walking on an opposite fairway and your wayward shot hits me in the eye then I don't have anywhere to go with that (apart from my own personal injury cover if I have it)neither should anyone and in law, no one would be able to successfully claim on that basis.

I didn't mention golf,
Simple question can a jockey or owner claim the RACEcourse , if they fell or got injured at a fence or on ground that was too wet or icy ect.

 

[sydney greenstreet]

I didn't mention golf,
Simple question can a jockey or owner claim the RACEcourse , if they fell or got injured at a fence or on ground that was too wet or icy ect.

Should be in out of bounds then ,

 

[williamalex1]

oo:

Should be in out of bounds then ,

 

[Five&One]

I didn't mention golf,
Simple question can a jockey or owner claim the RACEcourse , if they fell or got injured at a fence or on ground that was too wet or icy ect.

Who knows. I reckon racecourses are a wee bit quicker to close than golf courses and a bit more savvy when it comes to health and safety of their participants, especially the 4 legged ones who don't get to exercise a choice about running or not running.

 

[dufferman]

You will probably find that most losses or damages you could expect to encounter in other sports, especially at elite level, are covered by insurance. Golf, being one of the biggest amateur participation sports there is, is probably amongst the lowest in terms of its participants and principles being covered for loss or protected by insurance.

If your horse dies jumping a fence at Aintree and you've had the foresight to have it insured, then you claim. If you haven't then you suck it up and probably regret it. I can't see the problem with that to be honest and don't really see the issue if someone is prepared to insure themselves or if someone claims against someone who is insured for an outcome which has transpired. You should assess the risks and determine for yourself if you want to cover yourself for those risks. That's the same for any walk of life, not just golf. The greater the risk, the higher the cost is of covering it and if its too risky, you won't be able to cover it.

There is plenty of protection against frivolous and unjustified claims because there is a burden of proof required to be shown so your not going see a rush of one eyed golfers stumbling up the court steps unless there is fault, blame and liability in the conduct that caused the injury. You can't just claim because you have been injured. You have to prove it was someone's fault and not just an accident, you have to prove there was culpable conduct. You cant just moan, point the finger and hold your hand out. It doesn't work that way.

if I am putting and you fire your approach shot at the green I am on from 150 yards away and take my eye out, then I am suing your backside off because that is utterly reckless. If I am walking on an opposite fairway and your wayward shot hits me in the eye then I don't have anywhere to go with that (apart from my own personal injury cover if I have it)neither should anyone and in law, no one would be able to successfully claim on that basis.

But what you talk about here is a horse owner insuring a horse for falling on a course - a bit like insuring yourself to get hit by a golf ball. You get hit, your insurance covers you - not sue the other guy. If the horse owner had a horse that died, it wouldn't sue the course. You couldn't even sue another jockey / horse owner because their horse bumped into yours that caused the injury or death.

 

[Five&One]

But what you talk about here is a horse owner insuring a horse for falling on a course - a bit like insuring yourself to get hit by a golf ball. You get hit, your insurance covers you - not sue the other guy. If the horse owner had a horse that died, it wouldn't sue the course. You couldn't even sue another jockey / horse owner because their horse bumped into yours that caused the injury or death.

I'm not massively interested in racehorses to be honest. I have no idea to what extent they are insured or if they can be or if they need to be. I dont think you/we are comparing like with like.

I'm not advocating golfers suing other golfers, in fact I am against it in general unless there is utterly reckless conduct involved, BUT if an insured golfer makes a claim on an insurance policy for thousands of pounds and there is culpability on the part of another golfer, the insurance company are going to want to recover their losses from the other golfer. So it all boils down to the same thing. If they are paying out thousands and they can recover it, or have the possibility of recovering it, be that from an individual or from a club, or both, then they are going to try and do that. They are not just going to sit and watch £30,000 (for example) walk out the door if somebody has fired a golf ball into a green with 4 players on it.

If you get hit by a golf ball and your insurance pays you out AND the guy who hit you is cuplable in some way, he's going to be hearing from your insurance company, so ideally, if this is the area we are moving into, everyone playing golf ought to be covered and everyone ought to just give at least a momentary thought as to whether the shot they are playing is as safe towards others as it can be. I am NOT saying I agree with that in terms of avoiding being claimed against, but its just common sense and good etiquette to check.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I personally think that it should be mandatory to have golf insurance just to play as both parties are covered and its stress free all round.I actually played on a course a few years back where if you didn't have golf insurance you had to pay an extra £2 on top of the green fee to cover you,great idea :thup:

The only trouble with this (and i do think its a good idea) is that insurance companies are free to inflate prices because you have to have it, a bit like car insurance.

Surely golf insurance should be personal, so you only cover yourself, i.e, if your hit by a ball (and theft of course). If you get hit, but you haven't got cover your out of luck? Just a thought?

 

[mab]

...in fact I am against it in general unless there is utterly reckless conduct involved...

This is an interesting point though...

a. Theoretically, an individual should only be sued if reckless conduct can be proven.
b. Theoretically, I would assume golf insurance T&Cs stipulate they do not cover acts of reckless conduct.

Ergo, insurance is pointless.

(Please do not base your insurance purchasing decisions based on the above )

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Does seem that Golf Insurance is cheap for peace-of-mind though.

And for this reason my club now simply includes insurance cover in the annual membership renewal (peanuts in the scheme of things - unfortunately)

Protecting the public from harm on the course - even if theuy shouldbn't be there - is tricky. Previous club had lots of problems with public swimming in our 'on course' reservoir lakes. A real pain in the backside. We considered thinghs like putting irritant in the water or scattering broken glass on the bottom (out of playing depth obviously) - putting up notices warning of the hazard. But our advice I reacll was that a sign was not good enough. If we had such hazards in our water we would have to make all reasonable endeavours to keep the public out of the water - and that would have involved high security fencing around the lakes - not exactly what you want when the lakes are course features. So we had to put up with incursions.

In this case - if you can't see someone but you to all you can to warn anyone who might be there out of sight of a possible impending collision with a golf ball - then that seems like reasonable endeavours. Though a claimant could say that the club should have taken measures (fencing) to provent this happening.

 

[timchump]

interesting thread, i've played a long time without insurance i'm considering getting some after reading this


the fist tee tee at my club has the 18th green just to the right of it, you often get scenarios where the people wave you through to hit your tee shot even though they're only about 5 yards to the right of your intended line and 20 yards in front of you, i always feel uncomfortable being called through...........

i guess im still liable if i hit them

 

[Birchy]

interesting thread, i've played a long time without insurance i'm considering getting some after reading this


the fist tee tee at my club has the 18th green just to the right of it, you often get scenarios where the people wave you through to hit your tee shot even though they're only about 5 yards to the right of your intended line and 20 yards in front of you, i always feel uncomfortable being called through...........

i guess im still liable if i hit them

If they have called you through and are watching you hit the shot then theyve not got a leg to stand on!

I think im going to renew my insurance tonight now as well. I had been a bit lazy in getting it renewed but the hassle these stories bring to the people involved seems a complete joke and i dont fancy dealing with that if the situation arises!

 

[timchump]

If they have called you through and are watching you hit the shot then theyve not got a leg to stand on!

I think im going to renew my insurance tonight now as well. I had been a bit lazy in getting it renewed but the hassle these stories bring to the people involved seems a complete joke and i dont fancy dealing with that if the situation arises!

thanks that makes me feel a little better, i think they're mad calling somebody through standing in that position

 

[Birchy]

thanks that makes me feel a little better, i think they're mad calling somebody through standing in that position

If they call you through they know there is somebody in the close vicinity about to hit a shot and they should take necessary precaution etc. It would be impossible for them to prove negligence on your part if they had called you through as they cant exactly say they had no warning etc can they.